On 09/30/2011 01:27 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
>
> I just found the level 3 row confusing. As it is now, it makes it sound like you have to give multiple arguments in order to
> use a compound selector.
>
> It'd be fine with me if we removed the row or just changed the text s/simple/compound/. I don't feel strongly either way.
Selectors 3 :not() did not accept compound selectors, so the second suggestion
won't work.
How should we represent the fact that there was a :not() in Selectors 3 that
had a more limited syntax?
~fantasai